This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the order bearing No HLA 1133/84/57 dated Dispur, the 21st May, 1991 pissed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department. 2. The seven petitioners who are permanent employees in the office of the Director of Health Services, Assam has challenged their transfer from the parent Directorate to the Directorate of Medical Services. The petitioner Nosl,4 and 7 are serving as Upper Division Assistants against permanent posts and petitioner Nos 2,3, 5 and 6 are serving as Lower Division Assistants against permanent posts in the same office of the respondent No.% Director of Health Services, Hengarabari, Guwahati. The office of the Director of Health Services, Assam, an old existing Directorate, previously concerned the matters relating to medical education and family welfare over and above its usual functions. In 1984 the Directorate of Medical Education was created to deal exclusively with the matters pertaining to medical education and allied subject in the State, due to expansion of Medical Education. This Directorate of Medical Education was carved out on approval of the State Cabinet with separate financial and other powers and the post of Additional Director of Health Services (to deal with the medical education and planning)was upgraded by the Govt of Assam by a communication dated 10 7.85. After the formation, the office of the said Directorate is running by different persons under different cadres, such as Upper Division Assistant, Lower Division Assistant and Grade IV staff etc and all the petitioners are employees of the Directorate of Health Services and after creation of the new Directorate of Medical Education the two Directorates are functioning as two separate and independent Directorates and the staff of the Directorates have no connection with each other. 3. Mr HN Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexures J,K and M and contended that evidently all these documents proved that the Directorate of Medical education is a separate Directorate. On 8 2.91 the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 alongwith the Director of Health Services (FN) took decision of bifurcating the staff under their respective control. On 8 2.91 the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 alongwith the Director of Health Services (FN) took decision of bifurcating the staff under their respective control. As per the minutes of the said meeting of the three Directors, it was recommended that there would be a common cadre into matters of promotion and confirmation based on the seniority cum merit for a period of at least 10 ((en) years with effect from the date of bifurcation. Another recommendation was that the staff now drawing their pay and allowances under the Head "2211-FW-Etc" but working under the establish­ment of the Directorate of Health Services, Assam and Directorate of Medical Education are to be transferred to the establishment under the Directorate of Health Services (FW), Assam. It was further recommended that the staff drawing their pay and allowances under the Head "2210-Medl. PH Etc*' but working under the establishment of Directorate of Health Services (FW), Assam are to be transferred to the establishment of the Health Services, Assam, and the Director of Medical Education, Assam. After this recommend­ation a list of 39 employees of the three Directorates was prepared indicating therein the office where they were to bf; placed. In the said list the petitioners have been shown as transferred and posted in the Directorate of Medical Education, Assam under the administrative control of the respondent No.4 (Annexure A). This part of the recommendations is challenged in this writ petition. 4. Petitioner's main grievance is that no consent of any of the employees in whatsoever manner was taken at the time of preparation of the list and the aforesaid decisions were taken absolutely behind the back of the employees. Secondly, the aforesaid decisions touching their service condition and career had been taken without any discussion with the petitioners. Thirdly, the said decisions are not if conformity with the fundamental rules and basic princi­ples of service condition. 5. On coming to know about the aforesaid decisions of the respondents dated 8.2,92 the petitioners raised their objection against their transfer to the Directorate of Medical Education Annexure B* which was not attended to, rather the respondent No.3 issued order dated 4.4,91 (Annexure C) by which the staff of the three Directorates were transferred and posted against the respective Directorates as given against their names. In the said order the petitioners were shown to have been transferred from the office of the respondent No.3 to the office of the respondent No 4 and their names have been shown at serial Nos.29 to 35. 6. Respondents filed their affidavit through the Deputy Secretary to the Govt of Assam in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Dispur, Guwahati. Their specific stand is that there was no formal bifurcation order and no separate cadres for the respective Directorates were created. Employees of the three Directorates belong to one cadre and their inter se seniority has been maintained. From time to time employees of the Directorates have been put at the disposal of another Directorate but that did not amount to transfer to a separate Directorate and such orders of transfer are normally passed by the Director of Health Services. Further contention of the respondents was that the employees and affairs of the respective Directorates have inter action between themselves. They belong to one common cadre and that the two Direc­torates out of one Directorate of Health Services were bifurcated following distribution of staff. As this arrangement created some misgiving among the employees of the Directorate, clarification was given by a circular dated 21.5.91 by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department clarifying that the employees of the three Directorates will have a common cadre in the matter of promotion and confi­rmation and status quo in this respect as on the date of bifurcation will remain unchanged. Only in respect of new entrants under the different Directorates, their seniority will be determined by virtue of their position in the respective Directorates. It appears that out of 39 employees of the Directorate, only seven employees, the petitioners, preferred this writ petition. As averred by the respondents the order of transfer being not inter Directorate transfer there was no question of taking consent of the incumbents. The other persons in the list accepted the order and joined their duties in compliance with the order of transfer. Transfer order has been made as per requirements of the respective Directorates according to the respective volumes of work and nature of work in the interest of public service. 7. The other persons in the list accepted the order and joined their duties in compliance with the order of transfer. Transfer order has been made as per requirements of the respective Directorates according to the respective volumes of work and nature of work in the interest of public service. 7. The point before this Court for consideration is whether after effecting bifurcation separate cadres has been created by the Government, from the Annexures J, K, L, and M it appears that the bifurcation was made without creating cadres in the respective Directorates. The point raised by the counsel for the petitioner that simultaneously with the bifurcation financial power also has been given to the respective Directorates, cannot lead to the conclusi­on that separate Directorate with distinct cadres have been created. 8. It is a settled law that the Government ha» exclusive jurisdiction to create or abolish cadres for administrative exigency and for public interest and Court cannot interfere with this jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the interest of the employee is effected by such creation or abolition of cadre or post Court definitely comes to protect the interest of the public for the end of justice. In support of his contention the learned counsel referred 1984 (1) All India Service Law Journal 91 wherein it was held that to protect the interest of the employee transferred from one cadre to another consent of the employee is necessary. 9. In the instant case in hand it appears that for the public interest the Government created two Directorates, namely, Directorate of Medical Educa­tion and Directorate of Health Services (FW) under the Directorate of Health Services At the time of bifurcation the staff of the original Directorate of the Health Services were placed at the disposal of the newly created Directorates to man the responsibility. Though there was bifurcation no formal bifurcation order was issued and no separate cadres for the respective Directorates were created. Though there was bifurcation no formal bifurcation order was issued and no separate cadres for the respective Directorates were created. Therefore in the meeting of the three Directors held on 8.2.91 made some recommendations wherein it categorically recommended that there will be a common cadre in the matter of promotion and confirmation based on the seniority cum merit for a period of at least 10 (ten) years with effect from the date of bifurcation and that all fund of pay and allowances of the staff under the establishment of the Directorate of Health Services and Directorate of Medical Education be transferred to the establishment under the Directo­rate of Health Services, Assam and similarly pay and allowances of the staff working under the establishment of the Directorate of Health Services ( FW), Assam was transferred to establishment of Health Services, Assam and the Directorate of Medical Education, Assam. This position of financial arrang­ement does not show that this arrangement also created separate cadres for three Directorates. The heads of three Directorates sitting in the meeting recommended for a common cadre for the three Directorates. A cadre has to be expressly created as it is of vital importance for conferring fundamental rights upon the employees. It might be under Article 309 of the Constitution, or it would be created by the State Government under the exclusive power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution, but even under Article 16' of the Constitution it is essential that the cadre should be formally constituted, AIR 1970 Patna 25 (MG Sharma vs. State of Bihar). 10. In view of my above discussion, in my opinion, to confer legal right including right of consent upon a Government employee, it is essential that a cadre should be legally constituted. It cannot be assumed that due to notifica­tions and circulars by which the new Directorates were constituted a separate cadre was created. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that before transfer from the parent Directorate to another Directorate consent of the concerned employee has to be taken is not sustainable from my above discussion and therefore the reference of 1984 (1) AISLJ 61 (supra) is not applicable to this .instant -case as I hold that no cadre was constituted by the authority on bifurcation of the Directorates. 11. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.